The Ageing Tennis Player

I made some points concerning age breakdown across the years on another thread. Here they are on a separate thread. Might attract no attention, mig start some interesting comments but hey, dont say I dont contribute anything! Here goes...

25 years ago, the oldest man in the Australian Open draw was Johan Kriek, about two months short of his 31st birthday when the tournament began.  This year, 24 men in the main draw are older. A total of 34 men in the singles draw were over 30 years old. Tied with the all-time record, set in 2012. We have a record for average age in the men’s draw.  That figure this year is 27 years and 137 days, 91 days more than the previous record, set last year. The new record also marks the seventh consecutive year that the average age of the men’s singles draw has increased. The tour is aging, and quickly. Lets look further.

1984-2014 analysis

Players under 23 in top 100
2014: 5%
2004: 25%
1994: 22%
1984: 40%

Players under 21 in top 200
2014: 2%
2004: 11%
1994: 9%
1984: 17%

Players under 20 in top 200
2014: 1% (2 players)
2004: 6% (12 players)
1994: 3% (6 players)
1984: 9% (18 players)

Players over 30 in top 100
2014: 34%
2004: 15%
1994: 9%
1984: 15%

Players over 32 in top 100
2014: 16%
2004: 4%
1994: 3%
1984: 6%

Players over 30 in top 50
2014: 36%
2004: 5%
1994: 0%
1984: 18%

Players over 32 in top 50
2014: 16%
2004: 2%
1994: 0%
1984: 8%

Players over 28 in top 30
2014: 55%
2004: 23%
1994: 7%
1984: 23%

2014 analysis

Top 30
> 28: 56% (16 guys)
> 30: 30% (9 guys)
> 32: 13% (4 guys)

Top 50
> 28: 50%
> 30: 36%
> 32: 16%

Top 100
> 28: 50%
> 30: 31%
> 32: 15%

So, 15 players >32 in top 100
31 players >30 in top 100
50 players >28 in top 100
5 players <23 in top 100
1 players <21 in top 100
0 players <20 in top 100
....so, 44 players between 24-27 in top 100
....i.e. more players >28 than <28 in top 100 (56 vs 44%)

From juniors to <23 we 'gain' 5 players.
From >28 to 31 we 'lose' 35 players.

Seems we're not replacing the older guys anywhere quick enough...therefore, will the 24-30 window bunch even further? Then what will happen...is the number of >32s going to shoot up if no young blood is coming in, or will a load of players suddenly disappear and the gap gets filled by dross?


Bogbrush reply:

bogbrush wrote:I went for a lot of this Lydian but the continued failure of anyone to break through makes me suspect a deeper malaise.

The pattern of the past is young players come in and displace the older, often not because of age but because the game changes and the older guy has to change on the run while the younger guy enters on that basis. Federer has had to go through two great changes; growing up as a guy with serve volley in the fore (the famous win over Sampras looks from decades ago in style), through the baseline fast game, and into the slower conditions baseline game we have now.

The problem I see is that the game has stopped where it is, medical techniques (some borderline in my mind, but that's not illegal) extend playing careers and the result is no turnover. There's none, and it's not as if anyone under 24 is going to change that.

There's simply no change happening, no evolution.

Good comments BB, yes tennis seems to have stopped...borne out by the stats of only 5 players under 23 in top100. It's a huge concern for the future of tennis and I'm amazed the ATP haven't woken up yet...these over 28s won't be around forever. What's the solution...?

Summerblues reply:

summerblues wrote:Let me throw in an idea for a possible reason for aging - to see what others think:

How about increased money in the game?  Currently, #100 player probably makes good enough money to make it worth sticking around even if they are getting older and even if they know they will never really make it big.  Maybe in the past, the money was not there, so guys were more likely to bail out younger looking for other things to do with their lives?

I have not given this much thought myself, and I doubt it would explain all of the aging, but what do you think, could that also be a reason?

There is some truth there SB if you look at >30s in top 100 vs top 200. There are 31 over30s from 0-100, but only 17 from 101-200. Why? Probably because you don't make so much money from 101-200 rank so many bail out.

I'll add more stuff later too based on the >28 age group in top 30 having changed the most over the years. Any (reasonable) requests for data, let me know...!

Brilliant analysis, some of those statistics are shocking but the one that impressed me the most was players under 23 in top 100. 1984 - 40%, today 5%

Almost half back then, now barely any. Staggering.

Where is this going to end? Will we have threads in 2020 showing shocking numbers of over 36's and next to nothing under 26? How would the global spectator react to such a static sport?

It might take a bit of research, but I'd like to know what's happening to the younger players. E.g. the ten youngest players in the draw from 2010 - have they dropped out of sight, stayed the same, moved forward?
If the nature of the game now means that it takes longer to reach the point where you can make a decent living, are more now dropping out at say, age 18 - 21 simply because they can't afford to continue?
If someone can dig out just the names, I don't mind googling around to get more info on a few of them.

I has posted this earlier. This is for ATP (1969-2013) by Age of Title Holder for 30+.

Connors, Agassi, and now Federer and Haas are pushing this graph further.

Brilliant Lydian.   

I'm sure you have a life so feel free to reject this idea, but it would be interesting to see just how many of the ageing generation are actually at their peak ranking, and how many of them are on a very slow downward curve.

Sounds like a hell of a task to be honest, maybe a subset of them? Top 30 perhaps?

Cheers guys. Agree we might see even less under 25/26s in future. I don't have ready to use stats for 24/25 under but its probably worrying. I'll see if that's anywhere.

I'm also currently compiling stats for over 28s, 30s and 32s in the top 30 across all years from circa '90 to see if any period start to jump out when things really started to change.

After that I'll do the same for under 23s, 21s and 20s in top 100.
Good question JHM...that needs a different analysis...LF where are you??!! (Edit...oh there you are above...lol)

It's an intriguing set of numbers.

They could be interpreted in three ways:

1) All things remain equal and the younger generation is just not as good.

2) Things do not remain equal and there are circumstances that heavily favour older players.

3) The number of young players that have i) the talent, ii) the discipline and commitment and iii) the financial resources to break through has got smaller. In other words, young players aren't being kept out, there are just fewer to start with.

My instinctive reaction is the younger players are not as good. The reason for this is that I don't often get the sense of the younger guys being outmuscled or outlasted. Their losses seem more to be down flaws in their game (i.e. Dimi's lack of return), weaker movement (Raonic often seems lumbering) or physical shortfalls i.e. Dolgopolov has health issues, Nishikori lacks weight in his shot.

I like BB's point on other thread too. Tennis has gone a long time with unchanging conditions. The younger guys are having to displace the masters of the conditions rather than the top guys having to adjust to the new threats that new conditions or new styles of play bring. This makes toppling dynasties a little harder.

lydian wrote:… LF where are you??!! (Edit...oh there you are above...lol)

Just sent you a Dropbox link via PM.

PS: Corrected the link. It is a Tab-delimited file of ATP title winners and their age at the time of win.

Fascinating numbers, lydian. And your title posed an interesting question in my mind, too. Is it just tennis that's being affected by the aging conundrum? If developments within sports science are the primary factor, then you might expect other sports to follow a similar trend vis-a-vis a generally aging playerbase.

Of course, comparing many sports to tennis is like the old chalk and cheese, and few sports have the type of physical exertion that tennis does, so it might not be that useful a comparison. Still...worth considering, although we should probably keep this thread on tennis before we open up too many different pathways to follow!

Top100 % age distribution, based on year end rankings.

1986 to 2013 (<20, <21, <23yo)...
1986: 9, 15, 44
1987: 6, 16, 34
1988: 9, 14, 34
1989: 10, 14, 36
1990: 9, 19, 32
1991: 3, 12, 28
1992: 4, 8, 30
1993: 1, 9, 24
1994: 2, 9, 18
1995: 4, 9, 24
1996: 1, 8, 26
1997: 3, 5, 26
1998: 2, 8, 22
1999: 5, 9, 22
2000. 5, 7, 22
2001: 6, 12, 24
2002: 1, 10, 30
2003: 4, 5, 32
2004: 2, 5, 28
2005: 5, 9, 21
2006: 3, 6, 17
2007: 5, 10, 21
2008: 1, 4, 19
2009: 0, 0, 15
2010: 0, 2, 9
2011: 2, 3, 8
2012: 0, 2, 10
2013: 0, 1, 5

Here's a list of every player who was 22 or under in the AO 2010, with their age at the time.
One thing that struck is how few of them have pushed on. The ones that are successful now were already successful at the time - Djoko, Murray, JMDP - all in the top 5 at time.
Despite the aging tennis player (I know how that feels) it still looks like, as of 2010, if you haven't made it by 22, you're very probably not going to.
Donald Young 20
Carsten Ball 22
Ivan Sergeyez 22
Ernrsts Gulbis 21
Illya Marchenko 22
Novak Djokovic 22
Jeremy Chardy 22
Mischa Zverev 22
Santiago Giraldo 22
Fabio Fognini 22
Ryan Harrison 17
Thiemo de Bakker 21
Thomaz Bellucci 22
Sam Querry 22
Robin Haase 22
Daniel Brands 22
Evgeny Korolev 21
Marsel Ilhan 22
Marin Cilic 21
Guillaume Rufin 19
Bernhard Tomic 17
Juan Martin Del Potro 21
Andy Murray 22
Nick Lindahl 21
Antonio Veic 21
Matthew Ebden 22
Andrey Golubev 22
Jason Kubler 16
Blaz Kavcic 22
Lukas Lacko 22
Leonardo Mayer 22

Which in turn undermines the theory that it's just a matter of young players needing extra physical conditioning. These players are simply not coming through.

I don't know the answer, but theories which are logically consistent with the facts include....

* players run out of money to progress because they can't progress, which is similar to
* money allows players access to treatment that maintains advantage.
* succession usually comes because of changes in rules / technology / environment and as the game isn't changing the top aren't being perturbed.
* the sport isn't attracting the same class of young athletic talent, perhaps because the rewards aren't attractive to entry level players compared to other sports.

Others?

Top50 % age distribution, based on year end rankings.

1986 to 2013 (>28, >30, >32yo)
1986: 10, 6, 6
1987: 16, 4, 2
1988: 18, 6, 2
1989: 20, 6, 2
1990: 16, 10, 2
1991: 10, 10, 4
1992: 12, 6, 4
1993: 18, 8, 4
1994: 14, 0, 0
1995: 16, 4, 0
1996: 22, 8, 0
1997: 16, 8, 2
1998: 26, 8, 0
1999: 22, 4, 0
2000: 26, 12, 4
2001: 20, 8, 0
2002. 28, 16, 4
2003: 24, 10, 6
2004: 20, 10, 2
2005: 18, 12, 6
2006: 24, 8, 2
2007: 24, 12, 2
2008: 22, 8, 4
2009: 32, 10, 0
2010: 34, 10, 0
2011: 38, 22, 6
2012: 38, 24, 4
2013: 58, 38, 8 (!!)

laverfan wrote:

I has posted this earlier. This is for ATP (1969-2013) by Age of Title Holder for 30+.

Connors, Agassi, and now Federer and Haas are pushing this graph further.

Interesting graph.  Looking at it (and noticing that 30+ guys were doing well up to around 1980), could it also be relatively quick changes in playing conditions that may have been misplacing older players?  Prior to 1980, tennis was not changing very quickly.  When graphite came, tennis became much more of a power sport, later strings changed and surfaces too.  Maybe that was also a large contributing factor why older players were becoming obsolete more quickly.  We have now had a relatively long period with fewer drastic changes, which does not force older players trying to learn new tricks.

bogbrush wrote:* succession usually comes because of changes in rules / technology / environment and as the game isn't changing the top aren't being perturbed.

I see you had already covered what I was saying too.

I don't think it has anything to do with static conditions. Players should still be able to break through despite that. The game constantly evolves and there's no measure to say the conditions are evolving slower than other eras.

The same pattern is seen in the WTA where we're miles from seeing some 16-year-old cleaning up titles. More likely, I think the physical bar has really been pushed on the tours by the likes of Nadal and Serena. Any youngsters breaking through have to have reached a certain physical level. I just don't see many people breaking through who have the athleticism of Federer (whose athleticism is underrated when lauding his artistry), Nadal, Nole or Murray. These guys deserve credit for the incredible shape they've maintained. If it were that easy, everyone else would be doing it.

In their mid to late 20's, a lot of past greats like Borg, Mcenroe, Wilander couldn't be bothered. The modern generation of great players for me, seem to be a little more driven to extend their peak.

The money aspect is significant I think.

This interview with JJ after Paris 12 is revealing.

http://www.tennisviewmag.com/tennis-view-magazine/article/jerzy-janowiczs-financial-obstacle-course

Stands to reason. The player who can afford training camps and an entourage of coach, physio, nutritionist and hitting partner is at a huge advantage to one who can't.

mthierry wrote:The same pattern is seen in the WTA where we're miles from seeing some 16-year-old cleaning up titles.

This is not a good example I think.  WTA severely restricted the number of tournaments that young players (up to 18 years) are allowed to play - precisely because they wanted to cut down on the number of young girls winning (and associated issues related with that).  Maybe 16 year olds would not have been winning anymore anyway, but using this as an argument does not work.

Can I add a controversial one?

Yes but mthierry this isn't just about a few players, we're looking at distributions across the top 50 or 100 players. There is a shift occurring as a whole.

On both sets of detailed numbers, it seems to me that this has been a more marked shift in fewer <23s and greater >28s since 2009. This is interesting because its the year they banned carpet from ATP Tour and its rumoured HCs were particularly slowed once again (this would fit given carpet banning suggests a general focus on slowing the tour down). Slowing down would make it harder for younger guys to break through due to fitness required for increased rallying.

But I also agree with BB, I think there is a lack of quality coming through due to a number of factors:
+ quality of coaching has gone down, fewer big names coaching too
+ slower conditions as mentioned
+ global recession resulting in cutbacks - less national tennis investment for juniors to travel the world
+ global recession resulting in cutbacks - less TV revenues to spend on tennis, which means local events pump back less money (and the slower conditions may have been fuelled to propagate rally's for the big 4 match ups)
+ other sports taking off after 2008 Olympics, e,g, cycling

Yes pls SB!

That's a great link HM - he had to miss the AO qualies because of lack of money despite being ranked high enough. During 2011, he was mainly ranked 150 - 170 - obviously not earning a great amount of money.
 
He's another played who looked like he was going to break through only to stall - ranked 26 in May 2012, ranked 20 now.

Now as for where all the kids have gone... Well, that's a good question. 1) I suspect the changing sporting world plays a role. Twenty years ago, mixed martial arts was a niche field, mostly used as a step up to becoming an action hero. Now it's a fully fledged sport, with a global footprint. I don't imagine MMA take away too many kids from tennis, but it's a good example of how the sports world has changed, especially with regards to extreme sports - which have become so niche that they are now so expensive that they could probably be taking kids with the financial help away. I don't imagine Ryan Sheckler is seen as the face of a sport too many parents want their kids doing, but Im pretty sure he is the face of a sport quite a few kids want to be doing 2) The continuous expansion of established sports - According to some tweet re-tweeted by Andy Roddick, the world #800 golfer earned $100k in 2013, the world #800 tennis player earned $5k... The moneylist, and more importantly, how far it down it goes, is a reliable indicator of how popular a sport is, I think (based on the theory that the more players there are doing well financially, the more sponsors there must be, which means there should be a lot of fans). Is the promise of doing better financially while being less proficient at a sport something momagers and daddy-mannys (managers), who may sacrifice their child's education to help them attain sporting greatness - can afford to leave alone? I know there are a few parents on here: would you rather your child was tennis' #80 in the world, or a career starter in the championship (i.e. probably the top 400-ish footballers) 3) The world is getting richer - I read an article years back theorizing that Australia's regression from a former global super power was possibly a result of a more financially comfortable nation. Sport was traditionally seen as a way out - is it worth putting a small fortune in a prospective - and risky - sports career when one can become a middle income earner, due to your parents being able to afford you to an alright school. 4) Tennis is getting too expensive for juniors: On the flipside, while the world may be getting financially better off, it could be said that the cost of producing a tennis virtuoso is growing at a compounded rate, while the worldly wealth is growing at linear rate. It can't be the talent, as we are living in times when Brittney Griner is being discussed in serious tones as a potential NBA player, and Michael Carter Williams is having the most impressive rookie season since last year, which was the most impressive rookie season since Two years earlier... So the world's athletic talent hasn't diminished - there is just quite obviously something blocking its path to tennis. I know that there's a theory that in modern tennis, you need to be a grown man to hold your own, due to the power and stamina of the game... and It's one I subscribe to, but when there are only 2 players under 21 in the top 200, my instinct tells me it goes a little deeper than that.

Ok, mods pls delete if you think it crosses the line:

Could it be that tennis is not very clean around the top and that it is not much of a secret for those in the know?  What if it is off-putting for typical tennis talent - i.e., middle to upper middle class kids who may not be keen to risk their health for a small probability shot at success?

SB, in your hypothetical scenario, what do you mean by the "top"?

Because the whole top 100 is short on young players. Do you think it could be endemic?

lydian wrote:Yes but mthierry this isn't just about a few players, we're looking at distributions across the top 50 or 100 players. There is a shift occurring as a whole.

On both sets of detailed numbers, it seems to me that this has been a more marked shift in fewer <23s and greater >28s since 2009. This is interesting because its the year they banned carpet from ATP Tour and its rumoured HCs were particularly slowed once again (this would fit given carpet banning suggests a general focus on slowing the tour down). Slowing down would make it harder for younger guys to break through due to fitness required for increased rallying.

But I also agree with BB, I think there is a lack of quality coming through due to a number of factors:
+ quality of coaching has gone down, fewer big names coaching too
+ slower conditions as mentioned
+ global recession resulting in cutbacks - less national tennis investment for juniors to travel the world
+ global recession resulting in cutbacks - less TV revenues to spend on tennis, which means local events pump back less money (and the slower conditions may have been fuelled to propagate rally's for the big 4 match ups)
+ other sports taking off after 2008 Olympics, e,g, cycling

Couple of questions on this (not arguing just interested) :

Roughly how many events were played on carpet before 2009 and at what level (250,500)l ?

When talking about other sports taking off after 2008 Olympics does this just relate to GB or is it globally ? If the former I'm not sure it could be considered a factor.

Great post KR, some really good points there. Tennis does cost a lot to succeed at, but then that's always been the case...so I'm not convinced its a primary reason for things being markedly different over the past 5-6 years.

Not sure on that SB, although a good thought, I'm fairly well connected in British tennis circles and hand on heart I've never caught wind of the 'not very clean' aspect/temptation you refer to. I'm sure tennis as a whole isnt clean but I don't know when the temptation truly begins.

summerblues wrote:Ok, mods pls delete if you think it crosses the line:

Could it be that tennis is not very clean around the top and that it is not much of a secret for those in the know?  What if it is off-putting for typical tennis talent - i.e., middle to upper middle class kids who may not be keen to risk their health for a small probability shot at success?

It seems that it wasn't much of a secret in cycling but there were still plenty of people prepared to risk it, despite the rewards being far less than in tennis. As such, I reckon even if that were the case, there would be enough people ready to take the risk.

Cheers Calder...I'll need to dig on Q1, and the 2nd I'd say globally...but again its not a primary reason in itself.

lydian wrote:Great post KR, some really good points there. Tennis does cost a lot to succeed at, but then that's always been the case...so I'm not convinced its a primary reason for things being markedly different over the past 5-6 years.

Perhaps though, the gap between the haves and the have nots has increased. The top players now have a permanent team as well as access to costly temporary resources that top players, say 15 years ago, didn't really think to take full advantage of. Dietician, coach, physical trainer, etc.

summerblues wrote:

mthierry wrote:The same pattern is seen in the WTA where we're miles from seeing some 16-year-old cleaning up titles.

This is not a good example I think.  WTA severely restricted the number of tournaments that young players (up to 18 years) are allowed to play - precisely because they wanted to cut down on the number of young girls winning (and associated issues related with that).  Maybe 16 year olds would not have been winning anymore anyway, but using this as an argument does not work.

Even if I extended 16 to 18, the same pattern emerges. How many teenagers are making the impact Serena, Venus, Hingis, Capriati, Sharapova etc made in their teens? Fans of the tour are reduced to overhyping the likes of Sloane, Bouchard, Robson etc who really haven't achieved much, tbh. So the argument does still work a bit.

Link here Calder: http://archivo.marca.com/edicion/marca/tenis/es/desarrollo/1179715.html

Translated to:
The ATP prohibited to play in carpet from 2009
ATP decided that from the beginning of the next year disappear the synthetic carpet and all the indoor tournaments must be of hard surface, causing rejection of several players. Surprisingly, the ATP took the determination to eliminate the synthetic carpets of the international calendar, in pos to unify all the indoor tournaments and the courts must be coated on a hard surface, such as was made from this year with the Masters Series which is taking place in Paris and the previous one in Madrid. However, this measure generated controversy among many tennis players by favors to those who need a slower court.

"It is a pity that these super-fast surfaces disappear. We are going to play a tennis court where the most important thing will be to have four lungs and not the variety of blows. It is said that this is at the request of Federer and Nadal. It is incredible. Then, if a day Nadal requests that all tournaments are in brick dust, we shall do," complained between laughter Jo Wilfried Tsonga.

The side of the ATP, the communications director Kris Dent considered in the French sports newspaper L'Equipe that the change was agreed with the 50 best players in the circuit. "The change is decided for various reasons, but the most important thing is to adopt homogeneous surfaces, thereby reducing the risk of injury," said Dent. The ATP searches with this decision that the game becomes more ornate and that has less points earned through aces. "The physical force kills the talent," said the romanian Ion Tiriac, promoter of the Madrid Masters.

But the Croatian Mario ANCIC does not match that. "I am against this change. You cannot unify all surfaces because of the quality of the game. If we want the players develop all your strokes, it is necessary to play through surfaces in fast, if not the game will be very boring," he said.

That's my problem when I play singles - only 2 lungs!

That Yoda, talks sense he does.

True JHM. in UK currently about 20 players get specialised funding (AEGON) to the tune of £50k/yr to pay for coaches, fitness advice, nutrition, etc. They also get supported by LTA for travel, etc, but that's a fewer number.
However, I'm still not sure it explains the tour as a whole when we're looking at trends across 50-100 players and increasing age, etc. I do firmly believe surface speed is at the heart of this still and the that older guys have needed to time to achieve the conditioning required to become the specimens they need to compete. After all, why did it take Linford Christie until his 30s to reach his physical peak for 100m. Ok, it's not tennis but the physical maturation process must be relevant?

Funny how Tsonga thought the carpet bans were at the behests of Federer and Nadal...conspiracy theory that ATP wanted more Fedal finals...???

Thanks for the information Lydian.

HM Murdoch wrote:SB, in your hypothetical scenario, what do you mean by the "top"?

Because the whole top 100 is short on young players. Do you think it could be endemic?

Look, obviously I have no proof and do not want to go very far making any explicit claims on what I do not know that much about.  But yes, if I were to guess how many of top 100 were doping, my guess (admittedly with no real substance, just a random guess) would be "well over 50".

I am probably more cynical than most, and I am inclined to be suspect of most sports, but I think my cynicism can be at least somewhat understandable when one sees revelations in certain sports - e.g. cycling or baseball - which show how pervasive doping was able to be for long periods of time.

Thing is, I don't see why increased physicality should affect anything. Young sprinters topple their older dominant counterparts. So do young distance runners. Nadal could have come through any kind of physical era and still done what he's doing. So would Serena. A 22/23 year-old Federer would still probably dominate the sport. Certainly at Wimbledon and the US Open.Greater athletes entering the sport isn't a bad thing. McEnroe spoke a couple of times of wanting to see America's better athletes embrace the sport in their youth.

You have to question the drive of the younger generation and even their actual technical talent. You still have to give credit to the current top players though for striving to remain on top for so long. If their dedication waned, the younger talent would find it much easier.

Which would support the slowing > physical > edge needed argument I guess. I'm not convinced doping takes place in >50% of top100 players....I can't believe that many could keep a lid on it without the endemic abuse coming out somewhere.

lydian wrote:"It is a pity that these super-fast surfaces disappear. We are going to play a tennis court where the most important thing will be to have four lungs and not the variety of blows. It is said that this is at the request of Federer and Nadal. It is incredible. Then, if a day Nadal requests that all tournaments are in brick dust, we shall do," complained between laughter Jo Wilfried Tsonga.

Wow, that's quite statement from Tsonga! A Fedal conspiracy!

mthierry wrote:Thing is, I don't see why increased physicality should affect anything. Young sprinters topple their older dominant counterparts. So do young distance runners. Nadal could have come through any kind of physical era and still done what he's doing. So would Serena. A 22/23 year-old Federer would still probably dominate the sport. Certainly at Wimbledon and the US Open.

I kind of both agree and disagree with this.

I agree that I cannot see increased physicality as explaining everything.  Certainly I would expect players like Rafa and Nole, and probably Andy too, would have been pretty good pretty young even if they were coming through now - certainly better than the current batch of youngsters.

On the other hand, I would not go as far as saying that increased physicality might not affect anything at all.  As far as I know, endurance sports tend to have higher peak age than most other sports, so that could show in the numbers ultimately.

Also, the numbers are very striking, it is not just at the very top where youngsters are not making it - Lydian's data shows it is pretty deep down the ranking, and it is hard to believe that the lack of talent is so dire all the way down there.

It is hard to see one single argument that explains it all convincingly.  Maybe we just came upon a perfect storm of multiple factors (more physicality, less talent in the current cohort, more money keeping the old guys in and making it hard for the new guys to enter, etc) that all conspired to create this situation.

http://www.axonpotential.com/athletes-and-age-of-peak-performance/
http://www.axonpotential.com/athletes-and-age-of-peak-performance-pt-2/
 
The tennis link in there doesn't work - it should direct to here - http://www.itatennis.com/Page3968.aspx - it's a bit out of date now but maybe we can get something useful out of it.

Interesting link JHM.

As a side-note, I found this bit of interest too:

The trajectory of an athlete’s career follows a parabolic arc: a fairly steep rise as the body matures and skills are acquired, a peak, and then a slower, flatter decline as ability fades.

I remember some time ago someone mentioned here that - more often than not - the H2H between a younger player and an older one tends to favor the younger guy (Lendl vs Connors may have been mentioned as an example).  I wondered why that was, and the above would provide theoretical justification for that.

If the rise towards the peak is quicker than the decline, the period during which the younger guy has age advantage vs the older guy is longer than the period during which the older guy has age advantage.

summerblues wrote:

mthierry wrote:Thing is, I don't see why increased physicality should affect anything. Young sprinters topple their older dominant counterparts. So do young distance runners. Nadal could have come through any kind of physical era and still done what he's doing. So would Serena. A 22/23 year-old Federer would still probably dominate the sport. Certainly at Wimbledon and the US Open.

I kind of both agree and disagree with this.

I agree that I cannot see increased physicality as explaining everything.  Certainly I would expect players like Rafa and Nole, and probably Andy too, would have been pretty good pretty young even if they were coming through now - certainly better than the current batch of youngsters.

On the other hand, I would not go as far as saying that increased physicality might not affect anything at all.  As far as I know, endurance sports tend to have higher peak age than most other sports, so that could show in the numbers ultimately.

Also, the numbers are very striking, it is not just at the very top where youngsters are not making it - Lydian's data shows it is pretty deep down the ranking, and it is hard to believe that the lack of talent is so dire all the way down there.

It is hard to see one single argument that explains it all convincingly.  Maybe we just came upon a perfect storm of multiple factors (more physicality, less talent in the current cohort, more money keeping the old guys in and making it hard for the new guys to enter, etc) that all conspired to create this situation.

Or maybe we have a perfect storm of the most dedicated group of professionals the sport has ever seen and those Playstation age lazy youngsters can't cope.  

summerblues wrote:Ok, mods pls delete if you think it crosses the line:

Could it be that tennis is not very clean around the top and that it is not much of a secret for those in the know?  What if it is off-putting for typical tennis talent - i.e., middle to upper middle class kids who may not be keen to risk their health for a small probability shot at success?

SB… this is a valid line of questioning/discussion and stays (unless it degenerates into player-specific accusations).

Clean (aka sans illégal enhancements) is very tenuous and examples from other sports which require different skills than Tennis (like Cycling, NFL, MLB) taint the picture.

Even if we consider legal (WADA-acceptable) enhancements, Oxygen tents, hyperbaric chambers have been questioned by WADA vis-a-vis the spirit of the sport.

(I personally am skeptical if Tennis at the Top is tainted. Gasquet is the highest ranked player who had issues, IIRC).

An excellent post Lydian. This is easily explainable actually. It comes down to a number of factors that all lend themselves to players sticking around and being successful for longer periods of time.

1. Advancements in medicine: Years ago an ACL tear ended your sports careers. In fact a plethora of injuries could be career threatening or ending. Nowadays advanced surgeries and procedures can extend careers that years ago would have ended. Take Nadal, he might of had to retire but he found a new type of treatment last year for his knees that have allowed him to comeback better than ever.

2. More money: Even when adjusted for inflation the amount of money in the game dwarves what was in the game even in the 80s and 90s, with this kind of money very few good players will leave until they are chased off the tour kicking and screaming. And they will fight much harder than in the past to collect the big paydays.

3. Improved fitness and cross training. If you look at players in the 80s and early 90s they simply weren't as fit and weren't as chiseled as the players of today. Training has advanced as we have learned more about the human body. Things like Yoga and pilates that can prevent injuries and are common activities on tour now were unheard of even 15 years ago.

4. Nature of the modern game: The modern game favors fitness, consistency, durability, shot selection, and strong return games. Basically the last things that great young players develop on average. The days of huge blasting junior like Becker just out gunning everyone is over, the new technology allows all the top guys to hit hard and to deal with pace.

That being said it doesn't have to be one or the other. The young players could be part of transition period where we don't see good players being replaced. I am certainly not opposed to the idea that certain periods can be bare in terms of top quality talent.

lydian wrote:Great post KR, some really good points there. Tennis does cost a lot to succeed at, but then that's always been the case...so I'm not convinced its a primary reason for things being markedly different over the past 5-6 years.

Not sure on that SB, although a good thought, I'm fairly well connected in British tennis circles and hand on heart I've never caught wind of the 'not very clean' aspect/temptation you refer to. I'm sure tennis as a whole isnt clean but I don't know when the temptation truly begins.

Do you mind elaborating on this, lydian? I'm in a similar position to you, but at a more local level I believe. I've also not heard anything beyond general conspiracy theories and personal viewpoints of coaches, but I'd be interested to hear how the whole issue is viewed slightly higher up.

It seems to me that tennis is under-represented in certain parts of the globe.  For example why is there hardly any Asian men in the top 100 (are there any apart from Japan?).  They seem to be over-represented in other racquet sports (badminton, squash).

Sorry Silver I typed a fair lengthy response but then the website domain had expired....pi55ed me right off!